 |
|
|
This article highlights the idea of International Environmental Justice on a larger scale. The dam will probably help Uganda offer less expensive power to its citizens—once it finishes the dams and only to those who can afford it. But at the same time, dams displace families and reduce biodiversity at an alarming rate. And this dam was also speculated to even potentially reduce the size of Lake Victoria: the Aral Sea has been the textbook case for what can happen when we siphon too much water off, and this dam highlights that justice. While the dam could potentially do good things for Uganda, the International Rivers campaign is arguing for the rights of other nations in Africa to this water and for the effect this dam will have on their water habits and overall landscape.
I’m not too sure how I feel about the World Bank’s claim that this dam is the best outcome for all of Africa, and I think Kenya is right to be worried, as are other African countries that depend on the Nile for their water needs. The justice of one nation taking almost all the water that sub-Saharan Africa depends on is slim to none—what makes them any better and gives them any more right to that water than anyone else? Uganda could benefit from this, especially given how proactive they have tried to be in their resettlement funding, biodiversity protection initiatives, and tourism changes. But a lot of that is Uganda selling their idea to potential supporters.
The other interesting concept illustrated in this article is the fact that, while 60% of the sub-Saharan Africa uses hydropower, most are starting to switch to more reliable projects, especially with all of the climate changes that are presenting threats to dams on the continent with drying up or flooding. Yet even though they are switching, more dams are still being planned at this very time: how many will the region be able to handle before we really do see Aral Sea version 2.0, and would Lake Victoria and the subcontinent be able to handle these potential changes.
Is this dam a good thing or a bad thing? Uganda could grow, but is there international environmental justice in putting in a dam during a time when water levels are falling?
I think this is a really interesting article especially in reference to the concepts of environmental justice in developing nations. In America we had a huge boom of dam building in 1950s. The eastern United States were interested in flood control and better navigation, and the more arid western United States were in need of water for irrigation and infrastructure. The United States depended on dams to grow cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. Dams served a purpose for the U.S. but now many of our dams are getting older and less safe. We've seen the negative effects on soil, sedimentation, ecosystem health, and biodiversity and the benefits of relicensing a 50 year old dam are diminishing.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to say whether or not this dam is good for Uganda or Africa as a whole. Its hard to tell a nation to do the exact opposite of what we did as we looked for solutions to similar problems in development. There are obvious costs and benefits to dams, however stronger communication between the affected nations before this big step is taken is crucial. Water issues do not respect borders and for a truly just solution to come about, whether it be for or against the dam, it must come from all the affected parties.
excellent post.
ReplyDelete